R.J. Appellant (Defendant Below) v. STATE OF INDIANA (2023)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Defendant-appellant, RJ. (RJ) appeals his conviction of receiving stolen property, a class D felony on the grounds of insufficient evidence.

We affirm.

The facts show that tarpaulins stolen from Schilli Motor Lines were found on R.J.’s residence. He was charged and a jury found him guilty of receiving stolen property on November 16, 1983. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is insufficient to prove his knowledge that the tarpaulins had been stolen.

Although knowledge of the stolen character of property cannot be inferred solely from the unexplained possession of recently stolen property, knowledge that the property is stolen may be proven by circumstantial evidence. Mattingly v. State, (1981) Ind.App., 421 N.E.2d 18. Also, it has been held that evidence of suspicious behavior, by itself, is insufficient to sustain a conviction for receiving stolen goods. Griffin V. State, (1978) 175 Ind.App. 469, 372 N.E.2d. 497. When sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict. If there is substantial evidence of probative value to support the jury's determination, the conviction will not be set aside. Id.

In this case, the evidence most favorable to the verdict shows that on the evening of July 3, 1983, Michael Harris observed a bearded man, driving a small light colored car, stop and walk near an empty trailer belonging to one of several trucking companies who parked trailers in that area. He acted as if he were attempting to loosen a tarpaulin off the trailer. When Harris went to investigate, the man and the tarpaulins, which had been the trailer, were both gone.

On July 5, 1983, William Tolbert, a co-worker of Harris observed a car fitting the description given by Harris and noted the car's license number. On July 5, 1983, David Qualkenbush, Sheriff of Martin County, received a report from Schilli Motor Lines that tarpaulins had been taken from one of its trailers. Sheriff Qualkenbush checked out the license number given to him by Tolbert and discovered that it was registered to R.J. Sheriff Qualkenbush drove to R.J.’s home, but he was not there. The sheriff explained to R.J.’s mother the reason for the visit and Mrs. Jones told the sheriff that her son bad placed some tarpaulins at a nearby abandoned house on their property. Upon arriving at the house, the sheriff found two tarpaulins marked with the name “Schilli”. In addition, a car matching the description of the one seen packed at the trailer was found at R.J.'s residence. R.J.'s mother acknowledged the fact that the car belonged to her son. The mother also stated that her son had brought the tarpaulins home the other day.

On July 8, l983, H.J. gave the follow±:ng statement to the sheriff:

On 7-2-83 at approx. 10:00 P.M. I was at a party in Williams. I met a guy called Terry. We talked for awhile. Later, Terry wanted to borrow my car (1974 Mazda-white) to go to the bait shop in Williams to buy some cigarettes. There was another guy with him. I gave them my car. They came back about 3 hrs. later. I was angry because they were gone for so long. The trunk on my car was partly open and I noticed a black tarpaulin inside. I asked him about it and he said it was his. He said to leave them there and that he would get them before he lefts. Later, Terry and 3 other guys got in a green, pontiac and left. Earlier I had told him where I lived I stayed at Betty Wheeler's house that night and went home the next day. I was taking the tarp out of the trunk had noticed that there were two in there. I put them up near the old house.

At trial H.I. gave the same explanation as to how the Schilli tarpaulins ended up in his car. Upon closer scrutiny, one can see that there are some substantial flaws in his story. H.J.’s explanation was that the tarpaulins were in his car when Terry returned the car on July 2, 1983. However, the tarpaulins were not taken from the trailer until the evening of July 3, 1983. Also, H.J.’s credibility was questioned when he said that he believed, that, the tarpaulins belonged to Terry because the name “Schilli” was sprayed on them in several places. H.J.s statement that he had loaned his car to someone he had known only twenty minutes probably further weakened his credibility. H.J. offered no explanation as to why Terry had left the tarpaulins in his car. Furthermore, he was unable to locate or name any of the people who were supposedly at the party he described.

Clearly, the evidence against. H.J. in this case goes beyond the mere possession of recently stolen property as well as that of suspicious behavior. There is sufficient evidence of probative value proving that R.J. had knowledge that the tarpaulins were stolen. We cannot reverse the decision of the trial court without first electing to second guess the jury's assessment of credibility and this we will not do.

Judgment affirmed.

ROBERTSON, J.

NEAL, P. J. AND RATLIFF, J. CONCUR.